View Single Post
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
swamp
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT,
wrote:
>>
>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended

>>
>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>>takers.
>>
>>--swamp

>
> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
>Have you mentioned it to anyone?


Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Go Sox!

--swamp